9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 818X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inant) of Panvel has two sons by names Pradeep and Dinesh. Smt. Ashalata is staying with her son Dinesh and his wife Sonal. As Pradeep got married to Respondent No. 4 Smt. Swati, they were staying separately at Disha Co-operative Society, Plot No. 59-62, B Wing, 3rd Floor, Room No. 302 New Panvel. Pradeep and Swati have a daughter by name Smruti. ii) There were some differences of opinion between the deceased Pradeep and Swati (Respondent No. 4) on the point as to in which school Smruti should be admitted for her education. That on 16.5.2004, Respondent No. 2 & 3 went to the house of deceased Pradeep and took Respondent No. 4 and Miss Smruti with them. On the same day it was proposed to hold a meeting regarding admission of Smruti in the school. iii) That the Complainant; Smt. Ashalata with her son Pradeep (deceased) went to attend the said meeting which took place at 8.00 p.m. in the house of Respondent No. 1. Said meeting was attended on behalf of Respondent No. 4 by her sister the Respondent No. 2, Respondent No. 3, and others. After Pradeep and his mother went to the house of Respondent No. 1 Respondent No. 2 closed the doors and the Respondent No. 2 and 3 started abusing t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evant material, which would indicate complicity of the Respondents was already seized by the Police. He further observed that there are no criminal antecedents against the Respondents. Moreover, they are permanent residents of New Panvel. Lastly, the learned Judge observed that insofar as the apprehension of the prosecution regarding the Respondents tampering the prosecution evidence is concerned, that can be taken care of by imposing strict conditions. These are the only reasons which have weighed with the learned Judge to pass the following order, which is impugned in this application. "The order of interim anticipatory bail granted on 14/6/2004 is hereby confirmed. The Applicants are directed to report to Panvel Town Police Station twice in a week i.e. on every Monday and Thursday between 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. till charge sheet is filed. The applicants are directed not to make any inducement, threats or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer." 3. The present application for cancellation of bail has been filed by the State on 7th January 2005. In the firs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are made about non-compliance of the condition. It is the case of the Respondents that they have been regularly visiting the concerned police station, but they were not aware that they were required to maintain diary to take acknowledgement of the concerned police officer relating to the visits made by them. To support the fact that the Respondents were not only visiting the police station in compliance of the order passed by the lower Court, but the Respondent No. 1 was required to visit police station also in respect other cases, reliance is placed on document at Exhibit R-2 (page 69) dated 30th June 2004 which pertains to criminal complaint lodged in respect of Rahul Dipak Bhende. Besides, it is contended that the residence of the Respondents is just near the Police Station, about 200 ft. away from the police station. On this basis, it is contended that the allegation that the Respondents have violated the condition of attendance cannot be entertained. Insofar as violating the condition regarding dissuading the prosecution witnesses is concerned, it is asserted on affidavit that the Respondents have not resorted to any means, which would tend to influence the prosecution witnes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al case which was launched against him for offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The suicide note refers to the fact that Respondent No. 1 had told the deceased that he has already digested one murder case and there is no difficulty in taking care of the deceased, if need arises. If such was the state of affairs, which drove the deceased to commit suicide as noted in the suicide note and the diary, it is obvious that there was material to indicate the complicity of the Respondents, in particular of Respondent No. 1. With such material on record, the Court below ought not to have granted anticipatory bail to the Respondents when the investigation was at a nascent stage. Moreover, fair investigation of such a serious offence cannot be effectively done without custodial interrogation. 6. The other reason which has weighed with the learned Judge is that there are no criminal antecedents against the Respondents. Once again, that, by itself, cannot be a ground for granting anticipatory bail. Even if there were no criminal antecedents, but if there was sufficient material to indicate complicity of the Respondents on record in relation to a serious offence such as the presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndents have not reported to the police station, that fact is not only stated on affidavit by the Sub-Inspector of Police, but is also supported by the entries in the police case diary. To get over this position, learned Counsel for the Respondents would contend that the necessity of complying with the conditions imposed by the lower Court would arise only when the police, in the first place, decided to cause arrest of the Respondents and that has not happened in this case. To support this position, reliance was placed on the decision of our High Court in the case of B.S. Rawat (supra). There is no substance in this submission. The argument is ill-advised. Even if the Police did not insist for formal arrest of the Respondents, that would not absolve the Respondents of their obligation to attend or report to the police station in terms of the order -as the order clearly required that the Respondents to report to the concerned police station twice in a week on every Monday and Thursday between the specific period till the filing of the charge sheet. That condition is independent of the condition requiring release of the Respondents on executing bond and furnishing security in the even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Respondents is just near the police station will be of no avail. Because of the order, the Respondents were obliged to report to the police station. That has not happened in the present case. There is no reason why the stand of the State, which is supported on affidavit and taken by an independent person of the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police, ought not to be accepted. Counsel for the Respondents then vehemently contended that the Respondent No. was visiting police station in connection with other offence registered with that police station. Reliance was placed on the document at page 69 Exhibit R-2 to support this stand. However, this submission clearly overlooks that the document is dated 30th June 2004, whereas, the order of anticipatory bail is passed on 26th July 2004. The question of compliance of the condition will arise only thereafter. The fact that the Respondent No. 1 visited police station on 30th June 2004 will be of no assistance. Moreover, that fact does not establish that the Respondent No. 1 in particular and all other Respondents in general have strictly complied with the condition imposed in the order dated 26th July 2004, or, for that matter, have substan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary 2005; and pursuant thereto they did appear at the time of hearing of the application on 1st March 2005, but the matter was required to be adjourned as Counsel appearing for the parties prayed for time to examine certain aspects which were relevant for the consideration of the present application. The matter was accordingly adjourned to 2nd March 2005. The presence of the Respondents at the hearing of the present application was directed on the analogy of requirement of Section 438(4) of the Code as applicable to the State of Maharashtra; for, the present application is continuation of the action under section 438 of the Code. The Respondents, however, failed to appear on that date presumably taking clue from the deliberations which took place in Court on the 1st of March 2005. The fact that the Respondents were absent came to the notice of the Court only when after hearing both Counsel at length and before the Court proceeded to pronounce the order, the Counsel for the Respondents was asked whether the Respondents are present in the Court, at that time, it transpired that the Respondents have not appeared in the Court inspite of knowledge that the matter was to proceed on 2nd M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
